Talk:Safavid dynasty

Comments on RFC

I'm not sure I want to "mediate" here. I've edited articles on various figures from the Safavid dynasty but I've always avoided this one because it's so contentious, as the 12 archived talk pages prove. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject, but I have read up on it – although I am somewhat rusty at the moment - and I have no "dog in the fight" since I'm not from the area. I haven't read through all of the above discussions. FWIW here are my opinions on the issues:

• The current opening sentence is bad, even from a grammatical point of view. It should read: "The Safavid dynasty ... was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran." There is no need for the repetition of "Iran."
• The name of the article should be "Safavid dynasty" per the equivalent on Encyclopaedia Iranica as well as in line with other Wikipedia pages such as Qajar dynasty.
• Modern historians refer to the state as "Iran" (or "Persia") and so should we. See for example the title of the book Safavid Iran: Rebirth of a Persian Empire by Andrew Newman (IB Tauris, 2006). (A quick search of Google books under "Safavid" will bring up many other examples). Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France. I'm not sure that Iran is regarded as a nation-state today either. Obviously, Safavid Iran was a multi-ethnic empire and contained many non-Iranian (or non-Persian) peoples and I'm not sure they were typically referred to as "Iranians", just as AFAIK the Finns, Armenians, Poles etc. of 19th-century Russia were never called Russians. They were Turcomans, Armenians, Afghans etc. who were subjects of the Safavid Shah of Iran. But the name(s) of the subject people(s) is a different issue from the name of the state.
• As a rider to the above, the introduction should indicate that the Safavid empire at its height did not just include the territory of the modern Islamic Republic of Iran but all, or part, of the territories of the modern states of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Iraq and so on.
• As the title of Newman's book also indicates, there is a general consensus among historians that the Safavid realm was the first time there had been an independent state called "Iran" since the fall of the Sassanid Empire. This is an important point. Of course, the new empire was by no means simply a revival of the old one and was very different in many ways, containing Islamic and Turkic (or Turco-Mongolian) cultural and political elements in its make-up as well as Persian ones.
• The languages in the introduction should be limited to Persian and Azerbaijani, the chief languages of court. The Azerbaijani should be in the Arabic script in use during the Safavid era. Giving the names in various languages is little more than "cake decoration" as far as most readers of English Wikipedia are concerned. If anyone wants to know the other versions they can click the relevant Inter-wiki links in the left-hand column of the page anyway. If we have Kurdish and Georgian then why not Armenian, Arabic, Mazandarani etc.?
• Fussing about the exact ethnic make-up of the Safavids is a waste of time. As far as I can see, it is the normal condition of many, if not most, royal families to be multi-ethnic.
• Turkic as well as Persian culture was important for the Safavids, with Turkic influence probably predominating in the early 16th century at least (this is dealt with by the "Turks and Persians" section of the article). Using this fact to try to make the Safavid shahs into either modern ethnic Persians or Azerbaijanis seems to me totally anachronistic and misguided.
• The legacy section should be re-written and should maybe focus on the importance of the Safavids for the modern world. After all, there would be no Islamic Republic of Iran had the Safavids not converted the country to Shi’a Islam. The end of Safavid rule led to a breakdown in the close relationship between “church and state”, which would eventually result in the stand-off between the Pahlavis and the clergy and the end of imperial rule. A similar thing could be done for the importance of the Safavids in Azerbaijani history etc. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much.. I think you solved the whole issue, that I can check wiki without wasting time this time. I request that you also implement all the changes you mentioned, if not, I shall proceed. As a neutral 3rd party user with no ties to the region, all your comments are acceptable by me and you are the top non-affiliated to the region expert on the issue in Wikipedia who has edited this article. I hope this will finish the useless debates. I shall notify EdJohnson, who allowed one side to participate on the RfC despites despite their ban on this important RfC comment. If this RfC does not work out, then unfortunately arbcomm is where things might end up. I am looking forward in implementing all the matters mentioned above so that we may put an end to this 12 page archive saga. I also agree with the anachronism you mentioned (whether with regards to modern alphabets or modern preceptions of Safavid family) and I plan under the origin section to mention in alittle bit more detail (say 3 to 4 sentences) the Turo-Iranic components of Safavid family. I feel the origin/identity of the dynasty is not really a WP:lead item as the article is about Safavid empire. But it is anachronistic in some sense as some of these terms have evolved. I also feel it is not important issue, as we are discussing a whole empire, from philosophers like Mulla Sadra to mosques in Isfahan.

• I just wanted to comment on your point when you mentioned: "I'm not sure they were typically referred to as "Iranians", just as AFAIK the Finns, Armenians, Poles etc. of 19th-century Russia were never called Russians. They were Turcomans, Armenians, Afghans etc." I can speak to this point, since I have read some of the Safavid era primary history texts in their original language. In the Safavid primary history books, which are all in Persian (possibly few in Arabic but nothing else), the people of Ottoman empire are called "Rumiyan"(Romans) (Whether Turkish, Greek, Armenian, Kurd, Slavic, Arabic...etc), the people of Moghul India are called "Indian" (Hendovaan), the people of Central Asia are called ("Turanian" whether Persian or Turkish), the people of China are called Chiniyaan (wether ethnic Han or not), the people of the West are called Farangi (from the Germanic Frank)s whether they were Germans, or non-Germans)..and finally the people of Safavid Iran are called "Iranian" (whatever language they speak). If there was a need to actually differentiate ethnicity, of course "Tat/Tajik" was used for Iranian-speakers, "Tork" was used for Turkish speakers, "Armani/Georgian" for Armenians/Georgians and you also had the category of "Seyyeds" who despite speaking Persian/Turkish or any other languages, identified themselves as the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (e.g. Safavids). See also [1] (see the section "THE “IRANIAN-SHIʿITE” IDENTITY UNDER THE SAFAVIDS". Interestingly enough the Ottomans called all people (or at least Muslims) under Safavid realm as "'Ajam". This tradition continues today (e.g. Mir Huseyn Musavi or Ayatollah Khaemeni who are native Turkish speakers, but are Iranian citizens and use "Iranian" to refer to themselves as well. On a side note, in the Ottoman empire, people called the "Ottoman Turkish language" as "Rumi" and "Othmaani", and hardly ever, "Turkish" was used.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to implementing all of your suggestions. Infact, I would be happy if you implement it yourself, but if not, I shall proceed next week. Thank you again. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I have no real plans for a thorough overhaul of this article, but I might make a few changes - although, I've got to say this page is virtually impossible to edit, given the huge number of references shoved into it. I also have no plans to get involved in any edit wars as I don't have the time or inclination for that kind of thing any more. Ultimately, if people want an objective article on the Safavids, at least there's one on Encyclopaedia Iranica online, written by an actual expert on the subject. The only trouble is its Google ranking is much lower than Wikipedia's. --Folantin (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you don't have to worry about an edit war. I won't edit for at least week (well make it two or more if you wish, and I do not plan to change any of your wordings), unless I see vandalism (from AA arbcommed sanctioned users, so I won't touch your edits). The other side is blocked from editing it till early August. Babek Khorramdin, the other user that r.v'ed your edits a while back, is banned. All the ips are blocked as well. And there are serious admins (e.g. User:EdJohnston which you can report any attack or soapbox or unrelated comment to) is watching the page and I believe ready to clamp down on the slighest battle-ground comments. So the article is all yours, to fix up , and so I request you to kindly (as a third party user with no regional affilications) to expend some effort on the areas you see that needs improvement. I just ask you, if you feel like, to kindly also look at the high quality sources in this page that that you personally deem fit. I have mentioned the scholarly qualifications of some the authors that have been quoted [2]. BTW, I totally agree with you that it is stupid for google to bring Wikipedia before Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam. If this issue is solved, probably most people in these sort of topics might also leave wikipedia. Unfortunately google does not care about quality--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, on the one hand it's a shame about Google, on the other it's a real bonus having Encyclopaedia Iranica online and it makes Wikipedia's need for coverage a lot less urgent. I do have long-term plans to revise some of the Safavid history articles but I don't have time this year. It would also involve a lot of re-reading. Anyhow, it's been a while since I looked at this article but it looks like people have improved it and it no longer has quite the same obsessive focus on the precise ethnic make-up of the Safavids. --Folantin (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes you implemented and your RfC suggestion. Please be involved in the article. I also wish google wakes up. I am glad lots of the obsessive stuff was thrown out. The article is about the whole empire, but since there are users that are obssessive on the ethnic makeup of the family, one can create an article Safavid family. Probably one or two lines about the family in the section on Origin won't hurt (I think it should be mentioned they were primarily Turcophones as well, and I'll put a quote on that). One of the outstanding features of the dynasty is revival of traditional Islamic philosophy. Infact, it was the only place in the whole Muslim world were Greek philosophy and early Islamic philosophy, was studied and then produced the likes of Mulla Sadra, and Mir Damad. This tradition of philosophy continues to be studied till this day. So I think such intellectual developments need to be given more space. Thanks again.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Folantin, I also added something about their geographical extent at their height per your suggestion. Despite not wanting to do so, I also wrote two/three short balanced sentences (if you don't believe it is balanced, please let me know) in the identity section. The rest of the identity section, if any should go into Safaviyya, as this is an article about the dynasty/empire. Thanks for your help and responses, it was good to get a neutral 3rd party opinion on this issue and I think all the points you outlined should be reflected in the article (the current version is except for the legacy section which can be expanded). Personally, I would have preferred "Safavid Iran" to be the title of the article (per the most google books hit), but since as you mentioned, Iranica uses "Safavid dynasty" and it is your suggestion as well, I have let go of the issue. I hope you continue to edit the article. Thanks again. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Folantin, thank you for your time and contribution to the RfC. I agree with most of your points, which seem to concur with what I have requested in the RfC anyway, and the subsequent edits in introduction which emanated from your suggestions.

The only part of your comment I would slightly disagree with is using only the Arabic script for Azerbaijani, because the language is the same regardless of script. The official ISO script of modern Azerbaijani is Latin, hence the reflection of both spellings to highlight the languages of the dynasty in present-day linguistic terms would not hurt.

I would be glad to contribute to the Legacy section as your suggested to reflect more on the profound impact of Safavids of formation of modern Azerbaijani identity as well. That of course, depends on the decision made to allow my participation in editing of this article. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be possible to give the names of the Safavid dynasty in the various relevant languages in a footnote, simply to avoid clutter in the opening sentence. I've seen this done on similar articles.

You should certainly contribute to the "legacy" section, ideally using the relevant English-language sources. I don't know enough about the Azerbaijani aspect of the topic to handle it myself, I just get the impression it deserves coverage here. --Folantin (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Folantin. I work with English-language sources anyway, but will prepare information on Azerbaijani aspects of legacy, specifically the influence of Safavids on modern Azerbaijani identity. Atabəy (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe we need to follow Folantin on all the matters that was outlined by Folantin. I do not just agree with "most of the points" of Folantin, but all of them. I also agree, any other names and spellings can be put in the footnote, and only the ones Folantin left are the ones that count. What matters for the article is how Safavids used spelling during their own era. The major point of contention was solved as noted by Folantin: "Talking about whether it was a nation-state is a red herring. Medieval France wasn't a nation-state and it was still called France. I'm not sure that Iran is regarded as a nation-state today either.". However, comparison with Turkey is invalid as the name Iran was used officially by the Safavids, by their inhabitants and by other foreign nations [3]. Members of the Ottoman empire did not use "Turkey". But as Folantin pointed out, it is only what modern English-speaking Historians and sources use that counts foremost for Wikipedia. Once again I thank Folantin with his RfC response and hope he becomes an involved user. Thank you. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with his point that the legacy section in the end could be expanded.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Other, unrelated points

• There should be some mention of Safavid Iran being one of the gunpowder empires along with its neighbours, the Mughal and Ottoman empires. That should give it some context in the history of the Islamic world.
• The introduction needs to resolve the discrepancy between the two different dates it gives for the end of Safavid rule: 1722 and 1736. I can see the reasoning behind both but the Safavids enjoyed a brief restoration 1729-36 when they were de jure Shahs of Iran, although real power was increasingly in the hands of Nader Shah. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be WP:BOLD --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes Folantin and Khodabandeh, thanks for contributing and being bold. But I have some concerns and proposals:

• The modern non-english names-translitration: There should be only Persian or nothing or else Kurdish and Arabic too. The reason: Scholarly consensus is: they came from Persian Kurdistan and (hence Kurdish), also they are claimed as "seyyed" (hence Arabic). Can someone tell me why in this article we need non-english names? and how choosing of the languages is done (wikipedia policy link please)? So I propose removing all languages until cons. has reached.
• It is better to keep the introduction strictly "faithful" to sources. Why not using Britannica? There we have "Safavid dynasty (Iranian dynasty)...". It is true that we should not repeat the same words over and over but there is a difference between "..dynasty .. ruling Iran" and "Iranian dynasty...".
• Complete removal of the short sentence.. " It was of mixed ancestry..." from the lead.

The lead needs more work. Xashaiar (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think the language issue is a big deal.. I totally agree with what Folantin did on the issue.
• The introduction here is good per Folantin's edit, all of his points were exactly the points that I had agreed upon.
• I would also remove the ethnic concentration in the introduction, but it is not a big deal for me. The article is about the Safavid empire, one can talk more details about the ethnicity of the Safavid family , etc. in another article which is not a matter of concern for this article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Safavid Royal Dynasty of Iran ???

What's "Safavid Royal Dynasty of Iran" ???

• Google Books: "Safavid Royal Dynasty of Iran" -Llc 0

The name must by Safavid dynasty. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC) St albany (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Its highly disputed whether Safavid was just dynasty or independent empire based on territories of several areas including Caucasus, Middle east, Iran plateau , part of Afghanistan and Central Asia. Its possible to refer tens of books mentioning about Safavid Empire, so please do not make such arguments referring just on one book and saying "must" . Me and thousands of others have different view of point based on academic sources. We don't think that the name "MUST" be Safavid dynasty of Iran, please avoid such behaviour in future.

File:Ali Qapu night.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ali Qapu night.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Background – The Safavid Sufi Order

In 700/1301, Safi al-Din assumed the leadership ..

What does 700/1301 mean?

Also what does † mean?

46.64.75.124 (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)